 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just to make it clear to anyone who doesn't click the link to the article, Spielberg is not saying there is anything wrong with superhero movies per se. His concern as I understand it is more about how the genre is over-determining what gets into how many theaters, which is a fair point and an exact analogy to the dominance of Westerns in an earlier time.
“Right now the superhero movie is alive and thriving. I’m only saying that these cycles have a finite time in popular culture. There will come a day when the mythological stories are supplanted by some other genre that possibly some young filmmaker is just thinking about discovering for all of us.”
The link in the articles to the AP story gives a bit more of what he said:
AP: You caused a stir two years ago when you predicted Hollywood was headed toward an "implosion" because of the over-abundance of mega-budget movies. Do you still feel that way?
Spielberg: I do. I still feel that way. We were around when the Western died and there will be a time when the superhero movie goes the way of the Western. It doesn't mean there won't be another occasion where the Western comes back and the superhero movie someday returns. Of course, right now the superhero movie is alive and thriving. I'm only saying that these cycles have a finite time in popular culture. There will come a day when the mythological stories are supplanted by some other genre that possibly some young filmmaker is just thinking about discovering for all of us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's just one noticable flaw in Spielberg's notion: the shared-blockbuster-franchise age. The one he helped to create. Westerns were by and large cheap and made by the dozens, needing only a sufficient revenue to keep that wheel turning. Ever since Jaws hit the scene, Hollywood has been VERY SLOWLY learning how to balance budget with spectacle while relying on demographics and countries with disposable income. It's not necessarily about what type of film it is, but who is obliged to see it, with an entire industry promoted to its hype. I doubt that the likes of Roy Rogers and John Wayne were so inundated within a commercialized culture as Superman or Spiderman, whose images can be seen with ever turn inside any big box retail store (making them de facto toy stores). It's hard to be curious about originality when inundated with such Pavlovian conditioning.
When supermovies fall into decline, it'll first be at a fractional degree, enough for doomsayer bloggers to rejoice, but not enough to bankrupt Hollywood by the studio (already the "superhero fatigue" articles are spreading, and will continue year after year as if to make an egotistical difference). Whatever genre fix is meant to replace this one is already being gradually discovered and exploited by suits, not by "young filmmakers". The latter will be too busy building a resume of genre fare just to express more personal works much.... much later on. The pendulum of quality left town long ago, kids.
With that said, Civil War 2016! Woo!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
good post
|
|
|
|
|
|
I second BillCarson's approval of Jarre's post. Though personally with the current output of the genre, I would of thought the historical epics of the 50's and 60's a more appropriate comparison point as far as genres go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
